lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7055e836-cdad-1cfa-66f3-fba88dad5f5b@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:45:15 +0800
From:   Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     <eric.auger@...hat.com>, <james.morse@....com>,
        <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>, <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Fix some comments typo

On 2019/10/29 17:04, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Zenghui,
> 
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 07:19:18 +0000,
> Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> s/vgic_its_save_pending_tables/vgic_v3_save_pending_tables/
>> s/then/the/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   include/kvm/arm_vgic.h      | 2 +-
>>   virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 2 +-
>>   virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c | 2 +-
>>   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> index 0fb240ec0a2a..01f8b3739a09 100644
>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ struct vgic_dist {
>>   	 * Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI configuration table.
>>   	 * Since we report GICR_TYPER.CommonLPIAff as 0b00, we can share
>>   	 * one address across all redistributors.
>> -	 * GICv3 spec: 6.1.2 "LPI Configuration tables"
>> +	 * GICv3 spec "LPI Configuration tables"

Ah, this part shouldn't have been in this patch, as the description in
the commit message.
(And I remember the reason is just that, it it "6.1.1" in IHI 0069E but
"6.1.2" in some older versions.)

> 
> Why the change here? Pointing to the chapter in the spec is pretty
> helpful, given that it is 800 pages long (although it should mention
> what revision of the spec this refers to). For example, it should say
> something like "IHI 0069E 6.1.1 ...".

Yes, I agreed with you.  Marc, please feel free to drop this part,
or I can resend it with your suggestion.


Thanks,
Zenghui

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ